What is Shanmugam smoking?
This is the heading in the Today paper, ‘S’poreans must decide if they want President to have real power: Shanmugam’. I can’t believe this coming from Shanmugam. When have the Singaporeans got any say in the President thing? It is all the govt saying and doing, and going to approve in Parliament. Where is the part that Singaporeans got the right to have a say in this saga?
If Shanmugam is serious in what he is saying, that Singaporeans must decide, then let’s have a referendum on this EP criteria and the drastic changes to have race as a criteria for the election of an EP and all sorts of ridiculous terms to bar the ordinary Singaporeans from the right to be the EP. The whole act is between the govt and 9 members in the Constitutional Commission and later between the PAP MPs voting for it with the WP MPs voting against it.
Where do the Singaporeans come in on this, and have a say? I quote a comment from a commentator in TRE about what some Singaporeans are thinking,
September 8, 2016 at 8:26 pm (Quote)
I don’t even bother to read or hear anything about this EP nonsense.
Pinky has his secret agenda. Every damn law or proposal can be passed or rammed down our throats as Long as PAP and their sycophants are the main players.
Besides, no proposal or law is for the benefit of citizens but for themselves to entrench their power and remain in office indefinitely.
Does the above quote say it clearly what the Singaporeans are thinking and what part are they playing in this Presidency thing?
It seems that someone worked up in the morning and had a brain crash and decided that this is the best thing and should be done regardless of whether Singaporeans agree to it or not. It has nothing to do with what the Singaporeans want. If the Singaporeans have a say in this, do the necessary, call for a referendum for the Singaporeans to decide not because someone thinks it is right and he has to do it.
And the inclusion of race into the Constitution and all the high barriers, are they unconstitutional? Two top judges are in the Commission, and must have thought that these changes are constitutional? Are they? The Law Society and the legal fraternity are silent on this whole episode. Strange, didn't they the most learned men and women with respect to law and legality have any to say about this?